l 


v,"  


«l® 


. HP 

wmu 


THE  ESTABLISHMENT  OF  THE 
SECRETARYSHIP  OF  THE 
INTERIOR 


WITH  THE  COMPLIMENTS  OF 


HENRY  BARRETT  LEARNED 


50  Cold  Spring  Street 
NEW  HAVEN,  CONN. 


BY 


HENRY  B.  LEARNED 


REPRINTED  FROM  THE 


§mmican  §jftst<wat  ftwmir 


VOL.  XVI.,  NO.  4 


lifiisiii 

i mm 


JULY,  1911 


10^13  O 


353.5 


[Reprinted  from  The  American  Historical  Review,  Vol.  XVI.,  No.  4,  July,  1911.] 


THE  ESTABLISHMENT  OF  THE  SECRETARYSHIP  OF 
THE  INTERIOR 

The  secretaryship  of  the  Interior  established  in  18491  is  the  last 
of  the  principal  administrative  offices  which  went  back  for  its  incep- 
tion to  the  notable  decade  of  1780-1790 — the  epoch  during  which 
the  Constitution  was  drawn  up  and  ratified.  The  particular  circum- 
stance which  forced  the  need  of  its  establishment  on  Congress  was 
the  enormous  burden  of  work  that  rested  on  the  shoulders  of  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  a burden  partly  due  to  the  war  with 
Mexico  which  involved  such  resulting  acquisitions  of  territory  by 
the  United  States  as  New  Mexico  and  California.  Then  too  the 
Oregon  country,  added  in  1846  by  treaty,  brought  additional  admin- 
istrative burdens. 

Although  the  ideal  which  the  statute  of  1849  made  effective  was 
considerably  older,  the  statute  itself  was  the  indirect  result  of  sug- 
gestions on  the  part  of  presidents,  statesmen,  and  others  familiar 
with  administrative  needs,  which  had  been  expressed  from  time  to 
time  since  the  days  of  Madison’s  presidency. 

I. 

When  Pelatiah  Webster  printed  his  remarkable  pamphlet  in  1783 
entitled  A Dissertation  on  the  Political  Union  and  Constitution  of 
the  Thirteen  United  States  of  N orth-America,  he  then  proposed  in 
his  scheme  of  government  that  there  should  be  a “ Secretary  of 
State  ”,  an  official  who,  as  he  phrased  his  thought,  “ takes  knowledge 
of  the  general  policy  and  internal  government.  ...  I mention  a Sec- 
retary of  State ”,  he  added,  “because  all  other  nations  have  one  . . . 
the  multiplicity  of  affairs  which  naturally  fall  into  his  office  will 
grow  so  fast,  that  I imagine  we  shall  soon  be  under  necessity  of 
appointing  one.”2  Four  years  later,  in  his  project  of  a Council  of 
State  presented  to  the  Philadelphia  Convention,  Gouverneur  Morris 
arranged  for  a secretary  of  domestic  affairs  whose  business  it  should 
be  to  “attend  to  matters  of  general  policy,  the  state  of  agriculture 
and  manufactures,  the  opening  of  roads  and  navigations  and  the 

Y>  1 9 Statutes  at  Large,  395  ff.,  March  3,  1849. 

v#  2 Essays  (Philadelphia,  1791),  pp.  2 13-2 14.  First  printed  at  Philadelphia  and 

published  February  16,  1783. 

(75i) 


752 


H.  B.  Learned 


facilitating  communications  through  the  United  States  ”.3  Likewise 
in  his  plan  of  government  for  France  drawn  up  a few  years  after 
1787,  Morris  made  provision  for  a “ Minister  of  the  Interior  ”.4  In 
fact  the  conception  of  some  such  administrative  official,  however 
crudely  or  variously  expressed,  was  perfectly  familiar  to  the  epoch. 
Charles  Pinckney’s  Observations  contained  references  to  a Home 
Department.  Pinckney  expressed  himself  as  convinced  of  “ the 
necessity  which  exists  at  present,  and  which  must  every  day  increase, 
of  appointing  a Secretary  for  the  Home  Department”,  and  appar- 
ently he  meant  that  such  an  officer  should  be  made  a member  of  the 
Cabinet  council.5  Madison  was  popularly  considered  in  the  autumn 
of  1788  as  the  right  sort  of  man  to  be  placed  in  charge  of  a Home 
Department  under  the  Constitution  should  Congress  decide  to  pro- 
vide for  such  an  organization.6  And  in  the  early  summer  of  1789, 
during  the  course  of  the  debates  on  the  proper  number  and  arrange- 
ment of  departments,  Representative  John  Vining  of  Delaware  was 
the  leading  figure  to  propose  and  urge  the  establishment  of  a “ Do- 
mestic ” department.7 

Congress  was  not  inclined  to  establish  an  independent  Home 
Department,  but  it  could  not  escape  altogether  the  force  of  sentiment 
and  the  arguments  in  favor  of  the  suggested  department,  and  accord- 
ingly provided  a combination  of  the  duties  of  a Home  Department 
with  those  of  Foreign  Afifairs.  In  other  words  it  substituted  a 
Department  and  Secretary  of  State  in  place  of  its  first  intention,  a 
Department  and  Secretary  of  Foreign  Affairs. 

In  the  winter  of  1789-1790  while  Jefferson  was  hesitating  about 
accepting  the  appointment  as  Secretary  of  State,  he  gave  as  one 
reason  for  hesitation  his  objection  to  having  domestic  as  well  as 
foreign  business  to  attend  to.  Jefferson  confided  the  first  hint  of 
his  objection  to  his  friend,  William  Short,  in  a letter  of  December 
14,  1789.8  The  next  day  Jefferson  put  his  thought  in  these  words 
addressed  to  President  Washington:  “ But  when  I contemplate  the 
extent  of  that  office,  embracing  as  it  does  the  principal  mass  of 
domestic  administration,  together  with  the  foreign,  I cannot  be  insen- 
sible to  my  inequality  to  it.”9  On  the  following  January  4 Madison, 
who  had  recently  seen  Jefferson  at  Monticello,  made  Jefferson’s 

3 Elliot,  Debates,  V.  446. 

4 Sparks,  Life  of  Gouverneur  Morris,  III.  481  ff. 

6  Charles  Pinckney,  Observations  on  the  Plan  of  Government  submitted  to  the 
Federal  Convention,  pp.  10— 11. 

6 D.  Humphreys  to  Jefferson,  writing  from  Mount  Vernon,  November  29, 
1788  ; Bancroft,  History  of  the  Constitution,  II.  485. 

7 Annals  of  Congress,  I.  385-386,  412,  692-695,  passim . 

8 Jefferson,  Writings  (ed.  Ford),  V.  139. 

9 Ibid.,  p.  140. 


The  Secretaryship  of  the  Interior 


753 


objection  quite  clear  to  Washington.  “I  was  sorry  to  find  him  ”, 
wrote  Madison,  “ so  little  biassed  in  favor  of  the  domestic  service 
allotted  to  him,  but  was  glad  that  his  difficulties  seemed  to  result 
chiefly  from  what  I take  to  be  an  erroneous  view  of  the  kind  and 
quantity  of  business  annexed  to  . . . the  foreign  department.  He 
apprehends  ”,  added  Madison,  “ that  it  will  far  exceed  the  latter 
which  has  of  itself  no  terrors  to  him.”10 

The  theoretical  stage  of  the  problem  was  concluded  when  Jeffer- 
son took  office  in  March,  1790,  and  began  to  administer  the  business 
of  the  Department  of  State.  Within  a few  months  of  that  time  he 
sent  to  his  colleague,  Secretary  Hamilton,  an  estimate  of  department 
expenses,  reckoning  them  from  April,  1790,  for  one  year.  It  should 
be  observed  that  Jefferson  divided  the  expenses  on  the  basis  of  the 
“ Home  Office”  ($1836)  and  the  “ Foreign  Office”  ($2625).  The 
figures  are  enough  to  indicate  that  the  domestic  functions  of  the  Sec- 
retary of  State  were  almost  certain  to  be  extensive.11 III.  Moreover  the 
next  twenty  years  were  to  determine  unmistakably  that  the  Secre- 
tary of  State  was  to  be  overburdened  with  his  manifold  duties.  In 
truth  by  the  spring  of  1812  all  the  administrative  departments  were 
so  pressed  with  work  that  President  Madison  addressed  a special 
message  to  both  House  and  Senate  on  the  subject.12 

II. 

Madison’s  brief  word  written  in  the  face  of  impending  war 
sounded  a note  of  warning  that  could  not  easily  be  overlooked. 
Some  minor  changes,  it  is  true,  had  already  been  accomplished, 
revealing  the  fact  that  Congress  had  not  been  quite  heedless  of  the 
need  of  reforms  and  alterations  in  the  departmental  organizations.13 
But  they  were  not  fundamental  enough  to  afford  relief.  On  June 
12,  exactly  six  days  before  the  formal  declaration  of  war  with 
England,  we  come  upon  the  first  clear  recommendation  of  a Home 
Department  arising  from  a Congressional  source  after  1789.  The 
incident  is  worth  a moment’s  attention. 

Near  the  beginning  of  a report  read  to  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives on  that  day — a report  chiefly  concerned  with  conditions  that 
had  prevailed  for  many  years  in  the  Patent  Office  as  a subordinate 
division  in  the  State  Department — there  occurred  this  definite  sug- 
gestion: “Your  committee,  without  entering  into  any  detailed  rea- 

10  H.  S.  Randall,  Life  of  Thomas  Jefferson  (1858),  I.  557,  note  1. 

11  Gaillard  Hunt  in  American  Journal  of  International  Law  (January,  1909), 

III.  148.  Washington  placed  the  Mint  under  Jefferson’s  charge.  Ibid.,  p.  145. 

12  Messages  and  Papers,  I.  499,  April  20. 

13  Annals  of  Congress,  10  Cong.,  2 sess.  (1808-1809),  pp.  347  ff.,  352,  387-388, 
437,  443,  450-452,  461,  1546,  1549,  1553,  1559-1560,  1575,  1833-1835  (text  of  act). 


754 


H.  B.  Learned 


soning  on  the  subject,  offer  for  the  consideration  of  the  Legislature, 
the  propriety  and  necessity  of  authorizing  a Home  Department , dis- 
tinct from  the  departments  already  established  by  law.  Such  depart- 
ments ”,  continued  the  record,  “ are  known  to  other  Governments, 
and  their  benefits  have  been  recognized  in  territories  far  less  exten- 
sive than  those  of  the  United  States.”14  This  came  from  a com- 
mittee of  which  Adam  Seybert  of  Pennsylvania  was  chairman  which 
had  been  appointed  to  examine  into  the  organization  and  workings 
of  the  Patent  Establishment.15  On  May  25  Seybert  had  addressed 
a letter  to  Monroe,  the  Secretary  of  State,  asking  for  his  observa- 
tions on  the  subject,  saying  at  the  same  time  that  the  occasion  might 
afford  Monroe  an  opportunity  to  outline  a plan  for  separating  the 
Patent  Establishment  from  the  State  Department.16  Monroe  was 
harassed  with  work.  However  he  gave  the  matter  some  attention, 
and  answered  Seybert’s  letter  on  June  10.  In  general  Monroe  was 
opposed  to  all  inferior  independent  departments.  The  Patent  Office, 
he  thought,  might  as  well  remain  in  charge  of  the  State  Department. 
He  admitted,  however,  that  foreign  affairs  constituted  in  themselves 
a sufficient  trust  for  the  person  at  the  head  of  the  Department  of 
State.  “ They  are  ”,  he  reflected,  “ very  extensive,  complicated  and 
important,  and  are  becoming  more  so  daily.”17 

There  was  an  ominous  tone  to  Monroe’s  reply  which  could  not 
have  escaped  attentive  ears.  At  any  rate  Seybert’s  committee  felt 
free  to  broach  the  subject  of  a new  department  to  the  House,  declar- 
ing that  foreign  relations  were  essentially  distinct  “ from  many 
objects  in  the  interior  of  our  country”.  The  report  was  printed. 
No  action,  however,  was  taken  on  its  special  suggestion  of  a Home 
Department,  for  the  country  was  soon  experiencing  the  stress  and 
strain  of  war. 

By  1815  serious  weaknesses  extending  down  from  the  principal 
offices  through  all  the  national  administrative  organizations  had 
become  more  real  and  were  more  evident  than  ever.  Arrangements 
within  the  War  Department  were  most  unsatisfactory.  Within  this 
department  Indian  affairs  had  proved  to  be  peculiarly  troublesome. 
On  March  2,  1815,  the  Senate  passed  a resolution  requesting  Presi- 
dent Madison  to  instruct  the  Secretary  of  War  to  make  a report  on 
Indian  affairs  chiefly  for  the  purpose,  it  would  seem,  of  obtaining  a 
sound  basis  of  information  on  which  to  reorganize  that  subordinate 
branch  of  administration.  There  was  already  some  disposition 
to  place  Indian  affairs  in  a department  quite  by  themselves.18 

14  Annals  of  Congress,  12  Cong.  (1812-1813),  pt.  II.,  p.  2179. 

15  Ibid.,  p.  1435. 

16  Ibid.,  pp.  2190  ff. 

37  Ibid.,  p.  2192. 

18  Ibid.,  13  Cong.  (1814—1815),  III.  287-288. 


The  Secretaryship  of  the  Interior 


755 


At  the  moment  the  headship  of  the  War  Department  was  in  a 
state  of  transition,  consequently  more  than  a year  elapsed  before  the 
Senate’s  request  was  answered.  Then  came  a report  on  Indian 
affairs  from  Secretary  William  H.  Crawford;  it  was  dated  March 
13,  1816,  and  was  communicated  to  the  Senate  on  the  following  day. 
It  was  a long  and  well-considered  document.  From  certain  casual 
statements  one  gathers  a clear  impression  that  Crawford  was  aware 
of  the  burdens  to  which  most  of  the  secretaries  in  the  separate  de- 
partments had  long  been  subjected.  He  merely  hinted  at  “the 
creation  of  a separate  and  independent  department  ” without  giving 
any  details  of  a plan.  But  he  was  sure  that  if  a new  department 
were  established  “ much  of  the  miscellaneous  duties  now  belonging 
to  the  Department  of  State,  ought  to  be  transferred  to  it  ”.19 

Rather  more  than  a month  later — on  April  20 — Macon  of  North 
Carolina  presented  to  the  Senate  a resolution  that  was  passed  and 
yielded  some  unforeseen  results.  The  resolution  follows : 

Resolved , That  the  Secretaries  of  the  Departments  be  directed  to 
report  jointly  to  the  Senate,  in  the  first  week  of  the  next  session  of 
Congress,  a plan  to  insure  the  annual  settlement  of  the  public  accounts, 
and  a more  certain  accountability  of  the  public  expenditure,  in  their 
respective  departments.20 

The  peculiar  merit  of  the  resolution  was  that  it  brought  the  prin- 
cipal officers  together  on  the  subject  of  the  general  organization  of 
administrative  work.  By  the  following  December  these  officers  in 
consultation  with  the  President  had  formulated  a careful  report. 
This  report,  after  reviewing  the  principles  on  which  the  several 
departments  were  organized,  dwelling  with  marked  stress  on  the 
burdens  of  the  Secretary  of  War,  and  commenting  on  the  notable 
incongruity  in  having  Indian  affairs  managed  in  connection  with  the 
military  establishment,  proceeded  to  outline  on  the  grounds  of  actual 
experience  the  first  clear  plan  for  a Home  Department  in  our  his- 
tory. This  was  the  plan  which  lay  behind  the  recommendation  of 
Madison  made  in  his  last  annual  message  of  December  3,  1816, 
where  he  remarked  on  “ the  expediency  ...  of  an  additional  depart- 
ment in  the  executive  branch  of  the  Government  ...  to  be  charged 
with  duties  now  overburdening  other  departments  and  with  such  as 
have  not  been  annexed  to  any  department  ”.21 

Although  the  inspiration  for  it  may  have  come  in  part  from  the 
Senate  resolution,  this  first  plan  for  a Home  Department  signed 

19  American  State  Papers,  Indian  Affairs,  II.  26-88. 

20  Annals  of  Congress,  14  Cong.,  1 sess.  (1815—1816),  pp.  331-332. 

21 Messages  and  Papers,  I.  577;  Annals  of  Congress,  14  Cong.,  2 sess.  (1816- 
1817),  pp.  23—30.  The  report  appeared  in  the  National  Intelligencer  of  Saturday, 
December  21,  1816,  and  in  Niles’s  Register  of  that  date. 

AM.  HIST.  REV.,  VOL.  XVI. — 49. 


756 


H.  B.  Learned 


by  all  the  principal  officers  except  Attorney-General  Rush  may  be 
truly  termed  a Cabinet  measure.  It  provided  for  a secretary  whose 
duty  it  should  be  to  execute  the  orders  of  the  President  in  so  far  as 
they  concerned  the  following  five  administrative  divisions:  (i)  Ter- 
ritorial Governments;  (2)  National  Highways  and  Canals;  (3)  Gen- 
eral Post-Office;  (4)  Patent  Office;  and  (5)  Indian  Department. 
The  plan  was  communicated  to  the  Senate  by  Madison  on  December  9. 

Meantime  steps  had  been  taken  in  both  the  Senate  and  the  House 
to  consider  that  portion  of  the  message  which  related  to  the  possible 
establishment  of  an  additional  executive  department.  William 
Lowndes  of  South  Carolina,  chairman  of  the  committee  of  seven  in 
the  House  chosen  to  consider  the  subject,  addressed  a letter  to  the 
secretaries  on  December  22  asking  among  other  questions  whether 
the  accountability  of  public  officers  might  not  be  sufficiently  served 
without  a new  executive  department.22  The  secretaries  answered 
the  letter  carefully  on  December  31.  Their  conclusion  in  response 
to  Lowndes’s  particular  query  was  this : “ we  have  no  doubt  that  the 
just  principles  of  accountability  would  be  better  preserved,  and 
economy  promoted,  by  the  adoption  of  that  measure.  Equally  satis- 
fied are  we  ”,  they  added,  “ that  other  essential  advantages  would 
result  from  it.”23 

On  January  6,  1817,  a bill  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  a Home 
Department  was  reported  to  the  Senate  by  Senator  Nathan  Sanford 
of  New  York.  The  bill  was  similar  in  most  respects  to  the  “ cabinet 
plan  ” ; but  it  introduced  the  “ District  of  Columbia  ” as  a division 
of  administration  in  the  new  department  and  omitted  the  division 
of  “ National  Highways  and  Canals  ”.  Among  minor  readjustments 
it  placed  the  Mint  under  the  supervision  of  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury.  It  ran  a brief  course  in  the  Senate.  On  January  29,  by 
a vote  of  23  to  11,  the  Senate  refused  to  listen  to  a third  reading. 
Two  senators  of  distinction  opposed  the  measure,  Rufus  King  of 
New  York  and  Nathaniel  Macon  of  North  Carolina,  the  latter  a 
member  of  the  special  Senate  committee  which  had  introduced  the 
bill.  King  recalled  the  discussions  of  1789  on  a similar  project, 
dwelling  at  length  upon  the  opposition  at  that  time.  He  admitted 
that  times  had  changed,  yet  he  failed,  he  said,  to  find  much  reason 
for  multiplying  departments  or  for  having — as  he  expressed  it — two 
Departments  of  State.  A new  department  implied  that  the  Secre- 
tary “would  have  a place  in  the  Cabinet,  and  be  one  of  the  Presi- 
dent’s counsellors”.  The  bill  reached  the  House  on  January  20. 
The  next  day  Lowndes  read  his  correspondence  with  the  secretaries. 

22  Annals,  14  Cong.,  2 sess.,  pp.  697-698. 

23  Ibid.,  p.  699. 


The  Secretaryship  of  the  Interior 


757 


Although  the  reply  of  the  secretaries  of  December  31  was  judicious, 
it  could  hardly  have  helped  the  progress  of  the  bill,  for  it  was  in  no 
way  compelling  or  conclusive  of  the  need  of  a new  department.24 

The  failure  to  establish  a Home  Department  in  1817  calls  for  a 
brief  comment.  President,  secretaries,  certain  senators  and  repre- 
sentatives, and  doubtless  many  of  the  more  thoughtful  citizens  at  all 
well  informed  about  government  administration  were  inclined  to 
favor  the  measure.  Yet  when  the  measure  came  to  the  point  of 
actual  construction  and  enactment,  it  was  halted  and  in  the  end  cast 
out.  To  the  reader  of  Congressional  and  newspaper  evidence  cov- 
ering the  years  1816-1817,  two  questions  will  be  frequently  sug- 
gested. It  is  impossible,  moreover,  to  escape  the  belief  that  both 
questions  were  occasionally  before  the  minds  of  men  living  in  those 
days.  (1)  Could  a Home  Department  be  organized  and  adminis- 
tered with  a view  to  economy?  (2)  Would  its  creation  be  a consti- 
tutional measure? 

It  should  be  remembered  that  the  plan  of  a Home  Department, 
while  enforced  by  the  growing  burdens  of  administration — some  of 
these  burdens  doubtless  the  direct  result  of  the  war,  and  others  of 
much  longer  standing — originated  in  an  effort  to  bring  all  the  exist- 
ing departments  into  clear  accountability  for  their  expenditures. 
Without  more  definite  principles  of  accountability  than  had  hitherto 
existed,  any  additional  department  would  tend  not  only  to  increase 
the  financial  burdens  of  the  government  but  to  render  the  solution 
of  the  basic  problem  more  difficult.  From  the  standpoint  of  im- 
proved administration  a Home  Department  would  seem  to  have  been 
amply  justified  by  1817.  From  the  standpoint  of  national  economy 
— a subject  of  special  moment  for  the  next  decade — it  was  a measure 
of  doubtful  consequences  and  might,  in  view  of  other  needs,  be 
indefinitely  postponed. 

There  was  doubt  about  the  constitutionality  of  a Home  Depart- 
ment. This  was  plainly  revealed  by  an  anonymous  writer  in  the 
National  Intelligencer  who  printed  his  reflections  on  the  organiza- 
tion of  executive  departments  on  February  20  and  22,  1817.25 
Among  other  things  this  writer  proposed  to  obtain  a “general  enact- 
ment for  the  construction  of  the  departments  ” in  the  shape  of  an 

24  Ibid.,  pp.  18-19,  23-30,  33,  47,  52,  59,  60,  70,  74— 75,  88,  234-235,  697-699. 

25  The  writer,  whoever  he  was,  showed  some  ingenuity.  He  favored  four 
principal  departments:  (1)  Revenue;  (2)  Domestic  Affairs;  (3)  Foreign  Affairs; 
(4)  War.  “ Domestic  Affairs  ”,  he  wrote,  “ naturally  claim  attention  anterior  to 
foreign  affairs.”  The  War  Department  he  divided  into  two  divisions — army  and 
navy.  The  heads  or  “ conductors  ” of  these  two  divisions  were  to  constitute  a 
“ Board  of  War  ”.  Domestic  affairs  he  placed  in  five  divisions,  including  Indian 
Affairs,  the  Post-Office,  the  Land  Office,  the  Patent  Office,  and  the  Mint.  Were 
these  articles  written  by  Judge  A.  B.  Woodward? 


758 


H.  B.  Learned 


amendment  to  the  Constitution.  Belief  in  the  absence  of  constitu- 
tional power  undoubtedly  made  certain  minds  in  1817  peculiarly 
sensitive  to  and  critical  of  what  Jackson  characterized  many  years 
later  as  the  “ supposed  tendency  to  increase  . . . the  . . . bias  of 
the  federal  system  toward  the  exercise  of  authority  not  delegated 
to  it”.26 

In  this  connection  it  should  certainly  be  noted  that  the  project 
of  a Home  Department  was  inevitably  entangled  with  that  series  of 
speculations  which  marked  the  entire  movement  for  internal  im- 
provements— a movement  which  had  its  sources  in  the  fundamental 
question  of  the  proper  disposition  of  the  nation’s  money.  There  was 
apprehension  lest  the  establishment  of  a Home  Department  would 
be  used  as  an  argument  for  enlarging  the  sphere  of  domestic  legisla- 
tion by  the  general  government. 


III. 

In  1824  new  light  is  shed  upon  the  path  of  the  investigator  bent 
upon  reaching  the  establishment  of  the  Department  of  the  Interior 
in  1849.  Clay  could  declare  in  1824  with  conviction  that  “a  new 
world  has  come  into  being  since  the  Constitution  was  adopted  ”.27 
Already  three  years  before  this  utterance  in  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives, John  Quincy  Adams,  forced  by  what  he  characterized  as 
“ the  increase  of  the  inquisitive  spirit  in  Congress  ” to  make  investi- 
gations into  his  own  department,  recorded  these  comparisons  and 
contrasts : 

The  foreign  correspondence  . . . remained  much  the  same  now  as  it 
was  in  1800.  . . . But  the  interior  correspondence  then  was  with  sixteen 
States ; it  is  now  with  twenty-four.  It  was  then  with  a population  of  less 
than  five,  and  now  of  more  than  nine  millions.  ...  At  that  time  there 
were  in  Congress  about  one  hundred  and  thirty  members ; there  are  now 
upwards  of  two  hundred  and  thirty.  Then  two  or  three  octavo  and  one 
folio  volume  constituted  all  the  documents  printed  at  a session.  Now 
there  are  from  fifteen  to  twenty  volumes  published  every  year.  There 
are  assuredly  five  calls  from  Congress  for  information  and  documents 
from  the  Departments  for  one  that  there  was  then.  Every  call  requires 
a report.28 

It  was  clear  from  these  facts  that  the  Secretary  of  State,  unless  he 
were  robust  and  capable,  might  find  his  post  burdensome  in  the 
extreme. 

There  appeared  in  the  National  Journal  of  1824 — a paper  estab- 
lished in  Washington  and  edited  by  Peter  Force — various  articles 
written  by  Judge  Augustus  B.  Woodward.  The  first  of  these  articles 

26  December  8,  1829.  Messages  and  Papers,  II.  461—462. 

27  January  30,  1824. 

28  Memoirs  of  J.  Q.  Adams,  V.  239— 240,  January  19,  1821. 


The  Secretaryship  of  the  Interior  759 

that  concerns  this  inquiry  was  entitled  “ On  the  Necessity  and  Im- 
portance of  a Department  of  Domestic  Affairs,  in  the  Government 
of  the  United  States  ”.  Appearing  on  April  24,  it  was  followed  at 
irregular  intervals  by  others  which  touched  upon  the  subject  of  ad- 
ministrative organization  or  gave  detailed  consideration  to  different 
historical  aspects  of  the  presidency.  Judge  Woodward  had  been  a 
student  of  the  American  executive  for  years.  Whatever  he  wrote 
on  his  favorite  theme  was  likely  to  be  read  by  statesmen  and  other 
careful  observers  of  public  affairs.  On  friendly  terms  with  John 
Quincy  Adams,  he  is  occasionally  mentioned  in  Adams’s  Memoirs . 
Under  date  of  July  24,  1824,  Adams  wrote  of  Woodward’s  articles 
on  the  presidency  which  were  then  appearing  with  some  regularity. 
“ They  are  ”,  remarked  Adams,  “ speculative  and  historical,  referring 
to  past  events,  but  bearing  so  much  upon  those  of  the  present  time 
that  I told  him  he  was  treading  close  upon  warm  ashes.”29 

Elaboration  was  the  most  notable  feature  of  Judge  Woodward’s 
plan  for  a Department  of  Domestic  Affairs.  Under  the  secretary 
for  such  a department  he  would  have  included  eight  commissioners 
to  be  charged  with  the  oversight  of  the  following  bureaux  or  admin- 
istrative divisions : Science  and  Art,  Public  Economy,  Posts,  Public 
Lands,  Mint,  Patents,  Indian  Affairs,  and  Justice.  He  included  in 
the  bureau  of  Public  Economy  the  superintendence  and  execution  of 
internal  improvements  such  as  roads  and  canals,  and  such  other 
matters  as  the  care  of  unsettled  public  lands,  the  conservation  of 
forests,  slavery,  mines,  fisheries,  and  general  police.  The  scheme 
attracted  wide-spread  notice  and  gained  favorable  comment  here  and 
there.  But  it  lacked  simplicity  and  failed  to  impress  men  high  in 
administrative  circles  with  its  feasibility.30 

In  the  autumn  of  1824  President  Monroe  contemplated  recom- 
mending to  Congress  a Department  of  the  Interior.  His  reason  for 
not  doing  so  was  recorded  by  John  Quincy  Adams  under  date  of 
April  25,  1825.  According  to  Adams,  Monroe,  having  determined 
to  recommend  an  increase  in  the  number  of  the  judges  of  the  Su- 
preme Court,  was  apprehensive  lest  “ it  would  have  too  much  the 
appearance  of  a projecting  spirit  to  recommend  also  additions  to  the 
Executive  Department”.31  Nevertheless  just  at  the  close  of  the 
second  session  of  the  Eighteenth  Congress,  on  March  3,  1825,  a 
member  of  the  House  offered  a resolution  in  favor  of  the  establish- 

29  Ibid.,  VI.  401—402.  See  note  i at  the  end  of  this  article. 

30  National  Joiirnal,  April  24,  May  29,  1824.  The  same  articles  were  reprinted 
about  a year  later  in  the  National  Intelligencer  of  April  23,  26,  and  28,  1825. 
Woodward  communicated  some  of  his  ideas  to  Madison.  Writings  of  Madison 
(ed.  Hunt),  IX.  206  ff. 

31  Memoirs,  VI.  532-533. 


j6o 


H.  B.  Learned 


ment  of  a Home  Department  for  the  purpose  of  promoting  agricul- 
ture, manufactures,  science  and  the  arts,  and  trade  between  the  states 
by  roads  and  canals.  The  resolution  was  promptly  voted  down — 
stamped  at  once  with  the  disapprobation  of  the  House.32 

Such  Washington  papers  as  the  National  Intelligencer  and  the 
National  Journal  persisted  in  keeping  track  of  the  general  project. 
As  late  as  November  io,  1825 — not  many  weeks  before  the  assem- 
bling of  the  Nineteenth  Congress — the  National  Journal  copied  a 
series  of  “Remarks’’  on  the  subject  of  a Home  Department  which 
had  appeared  in  the  American  Athenaeum.  “We  shall  feel  grate- 
ful ”,  concluded  the  writer  in  the  Athenaeum,  “ if  any  gentlemen  will 
favour  us  with  a paper  on  this  subject,  writing  in  a truly  national 
spirit,  and  tending  to  elucidate  the  advantages  or  disadvantages  that 
may  be  expected  to  result  from  the  establishment  of  a Home  De- 
partment for  the  United  States.” 

John  Quincy  Adams  was  the  first  president  after  Madison  to  call 
public  attention  to  the  need  of  an  additional  executive  department. 
Under  the  obligation  of  an  “ indispensable  duty  ”,  he  did  so  in  his 
first  annual  message  of  December  6.  Remarking  that  “ the  Depart- 
ments of  Foreign  Affairs  and  of  the  Interior,  which  early  after  the 
formation  of  the  Government  had  been  united  in  one,  continue  so 
united  to  this  time,  to  the  unquestionable  detriment  of  the  public 
service  ”,  he  went  on  to  refer  deferentially  to  Madison’s  suggestion 
and  said : 

The  exigencies  of  the  public  service  and  its  unavoidable  deficiencies 
. . . have  added  yearly  cumulative  weight  to  the  considerations  presented 
by  him  as  persuasive  to  the  measure,  and  in  recommending  it  to  your 
deliberations  I am  happy  to  have  the  influence  of  his  high  authority  in 
aid  of  the  undoubting  convictions  of  my  own  experience.33 

Both  Madison  and  Adams  could  speak  with  all  the  more  authority 
on  the  subject  because  they  had  each  had  eight  years  of  experience 
as  Secretaries  of  State  before  they  entered  upon  the  work  of  the 
presidency. 

This  recommendation  of  President  Adams  had  been  carefully 
discussed  by  the  Cabinet  before  it  was  made  public,  as  we  know  from 
the  record  of  the  Memoirs N Rush  of  the  Treasury  Department 
urged  the  immediate  communication  of  the  recommendation  in  the 
message.  Clay,  Secretary  of  State,  while  admitting  that  a new 
executive  department  “ was  of  most  urgent  necessity  ”,  was  inclined 
to  believe  that  Congress  could  not  be  persuaded  to  take  any  action  in 
the  matter.  Nevertheless  the  House  promptly  sought  light  on  the 

32 Register  op  Debates,  18  Cong.,  2 sess.  (1824-1825),  I.  740. 

33  Messages  and  Papers,  II.  315. 

34  VII.  62-63. 


The  Secretaryship  of  the  Interior 


761 


subject,  appointing  a special  committee  of  which  Daniel  Webster 
was  chairman.35  Little  could  Webster  have  dreamed  that  his  interest 
in  the  subject,  first  aroused  in  1825,  was  to  continue  over  an  interval 
of  almost  a quarter  of  a century,  and  that  finally  he  was  to  take  a 
leading  part  in  the  passing  of  the  bill  of  1849  which  actually  estab- 
lished the  Interior  Department. 

On  the  evening  of  December  16  Webster  called  on  the  President 
for  the  purpose,  among  other  things,  of  obtaining  from  Adams  his 
ideas.  The  President,  like  Clay,  was  in  doubt  about  the  attitude  of 
Congress  toward  any  such  measure.  From  his  record  of  the  inter- 
view with  Webster  the  reader  may  obtain  a clear  impression  of  his 
thought. 

I said  [wrote  Adams],  if  it  was  possible  in  any  manner  to  obtain 
this  from  Congress  it  must  be  by  a very  short  Act,  expressing  in  very 
general  terms  the  objects  committed  to  it — the  internal  correspondence, 
the  roads  and  canals,  the  Indians  and  the  Patent  Office.  I referred  him 
to  the  papers  of  Judge  Woodward  on  a Home  Department  in  the 
National  Journal,  but  observed  that  was  a plan  upon  a scale  much  too 
large  for  the  approbation  of  Congress,  to  begin  with.  I have  indeed 
no  expectation  of  success  with  this  Congress  for  any  such  establishment 
even  upon  the  simplest  plan.36 

The  interview  was  apparently  only  the  starting-point  in  the  search 
for  information.  Late  in  the  following  January  Webster  addressed 
a letter  on  the  subject  to  the  four  heads  of  departments,  Clay,  Rush, 
Barbpur,  and  Southard.  For  some  unknown  reason  Wirt,  the 
Attorney-General,  was  ignored.  Clay  gave  careful  consideration  to 
the  letter,  then  answered  it  at  length,  approving  the  general  plan  and 
stating  reasons  why  a Home  Department  seemed  to  him  necessary. 
Rush  declared  himself  too  inexperienced  in  the  business  of  the 
Treasury  Department  to  have  any  decided  opinion  'to  offer.  Bar- 
bour acknowledged  that  he  would  be  glad  to  have  pensions  and 
Indian  affairs  off  his  shoulders  as  Secretary  of  War.  Southard 
found  his  tasks  as  Secretary  of  the  Navy  not  specially  burdensome.37 

That  a bill  was  not  only  contemplated,  but  was  actually  in  course 
of  formulation  at  the  time,  would  appear  from  Adams’s  reference 
on  January  24  to  “ the  proposed  bill  for  the  establishment  of  a Home 
Department  ”,  for  the  President  added  that  “ the  duties  to  be  assigned 
to  it  will  be  taken  almost  entirely  from  the  Departments  of  State 
and  of  War”.38  But  the  evidence  after  this  on  the  progress  of  the 
matter  is  scant.  It  is  certain  that  no  definite  action  on  the  subject 

35  Ibid.,  VII.  83;  Register  of  Debates,  19  Cong.,  1 sess.  (1825-1826),  p.  797. 

36  Memoirs,  VII.  83-84. 

37 Senate  Documents,  21  Cong.,  1 sess.  (1829-1830),  vol.  II.,  no.  109,  p.  13. 
Here  will  be  found  the  correspondence. 

38  Memoirs,  VII.  109. 


762 


H.  B.  Learned 


was  taken  by  Congress  in  1826,  although  on  May  22,  the  last  day 
of  the  session,  a report  was  made  to  the  House  and  was  placed  on 
file.39  The  subject  seems  never  again  during  Adams’s  term  to  have 
come  before  Congress.  But  Adams  did  not  forget  it,  for  as  late 
as  1839,  in  a paper  read  before  the  New  York  Historical  Society  on 
“The  Jubilee  of  the  Constitution”,  he  then  deplored  the  absence  of 
a Home  Department.40 

President  Jackson,  like  his  predecessor,  Adams,  was  impressed 
by  the  justness  of  Madison’s  plea  for  an  additional  executive  depart- 
ment. He  gave  the  subject  brief  consideration  in  his  first  annual 
message  of  December,  1829.  The  State  Department  had  from  an 
early  period,  as  he  remarked,  "been  overburdened  with  business  owing 
to  many  complications  in  our  foreign  relations.  These  relations, 
moreover,  had  been  very  much  extended  because  of  large  additions 
made  to  the  number  of  independent  nations.  The  remedy  proposed, 
the  establishment  of  a Home  Department,  had  not  met  favorable 
attention  from  Congress  “ on  account  of  its  supposed  tendency  to 
increase  gradually  and  imperceptibly,  the  already  too  strong  bias  of 
the  federal  system  toward  the  exercise  of  authority  not  delegated 
to  it  ”.  Accordingly  in  view  of  the  popular  expression  of  opposition 
he  was  himself  disinclined  to  revive  the  old  recommendation.  Ap- 
preciating, however,  the  importance  of  somehow  relieving  the  Secre- 
tary of  State  of  larger  burdens,  he  ventured  to  call  the  attention  of 
Congress  to  the  problem.41 

Congress  was  inclined  to  respond  to  the  suggestion.  They  en- 
deavored to  reorganize  the  office  of  the  Attorney-General — a matter 
that  Jackson  considered  of  paramount  importance — and  carried  out 
some  slight  alterations  in  that  office  during  the  spring  of  1830.42 
The  debates  on  the  matter  in  the  Senate  show  clearly  that  Webster, 
Rowan  of  Kentucky,  and  Barton  of  Missouri  all  favored  a Home 
Department.  One  thing  was  perfectly  obvious  at  this  time — the 
incongruity  in  having  Indian  affairs  under  the  Secretary  of  War, 
the  Patent  Office  in  the  State  Department,  and  a Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  who  was  obliged  by  law  to  consider  and  decide  innumerable 
problems  connected  with  the  public  lands.43 

39  Printed  in  Senate  Documents,  21  Cong.,  1 sess.  (1829-1830),  vol.  II.,  no.  109. 
The  Report  omits  the  text  of  a bill  in  a way  which  leads  one  to  think  that  some- 
how the  text  might  have  been  lost  before  the  Report  was  printed. 

40  The  Jubilee  of  the  Constitution,  A Discourse  delivered  at  the  request  of 
the  New  York  Historical  Society,  in  the  City  of  New  York,  on  Tuesday,  the  30th 
of  April,  1839  (New  York,  1839),  p.  77- 

41  Messages  and  Papers,  II.  461—462. 

42  See  Political  Science  Quarterly  (September,  1909),  XXIV.  453“45.4- 

43 Register  of  Debates  (1829-1830),  vol.  VI.,  pt.  1.,  pp.  276,  323-324-  A text- 
book of  the  time  remarked : “ It  is  the  opinion  of  many  intelligent  persons,  that 


The  Secretaryship  of  the  Interior  763 

Just  before  his  retirement  from  the  presidency  Jackson  put  him-  , 
self  on  record  regarding  the  prosperous  condition  of  the  executive 
departments,  referring  to  the  ability  and  integrity  with  which  these 
departments  had  been  conducted.44  Somehow  Jackson’s  principal 
officers,  it  would  seem,  got  on  very  well  without  a Home  Depart- 
ment. But  the  topic  of  a Home  Department  cropped  up  in  the 
newspapers  occasionally  after  Jackson’s  term,  for  administrative 
burdens  were  constantly  increasing  and  seemed  to  demand  more 
careful  differentiation  than  they  had  yet  received.45 

IV. 

President  Polk  followed  Jackson’s  lead  in  more  ways  than  one. 
Like  Jackson  he  called  attention  in  his  first  annual  message  of  De- 
cember, 1845,  to  the  necessity  of  relieving  the  executive  departments 
by  redistributing  various  duties  among  them.  The  administrative 
organizations  seemed  to  him  in  many  places  to  be  out  of  joint.  He 
commented  especially  on  the  duties  of  a domestic  nature  which  rested 
on  the  shoulders  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  and  suggested  that  the 
Patent  Office  might  well  be  transferred  to  the  office  of  the  Attorney- 
General.  The  tone  of  the  recommendations  was  not  robust  and 
strong,  but  sounded  as  though  Polk  himself  doubted  whether,  under 
the  circumstances  of  trouble  with  Mexico  over  the  Texas  situation, 
Congress  would  be  inclined  to  undertake  measures  of  administrative 
reform.46  No  such  measures  at  any  rate  were  undertaken,  for  the 
war  with  Mexico  soon  absorbed  attention  and  concentrated  Con- 
gressional effort  on  other  matters.  Yet  the  results  of  the  war — par- 
ticularly the  acquisition  of  territory  from  Mexico — and  the  control 
of  the  Oregon  country  as  the  outcome  of  the  treaty  of  1846,  were 
largely  responsible  for  the  ultimate  attainment  of  a new  department 
in  1849. 

Polk’s  cabinet  was  carefully  selected.  It  contained  several  men 
of  marked  ability:  James  Buchanan  was  Secretary  of  State;  William 
L.  Marcy  was  Secretary  of  War;  and  Robert  J.  Walker  was  Secre- 
tary of  the  Treasury.  It  was  Walker  who  was  largely  responsible 
for  arousing  Congress  to  an  appreciation  of  the  vital  need  for  the 
act  on  the  basis  of  which  the  Department  of  the  Interior  was  organ- 
ized in  March,  1849. 

the  labors  of  conducting  the  government  could  be  more  easily  and  correctly  per- 
formed by  the  establishment  of  a Home  Department.  . . William  Sullivan, 
The  Political  Class  Book  (Boston,  1831),  p.  90. 

44 Messages  and  Papers,  III.  259. 

45  National  Intelligencer,  October  21,  December  8,  1841.  The  Cincinnati 
Gazette  about  this  time  was  vigorous  in  its  approval  of  the  project  for  a Home 
Department. 

46  Messages  and  Papers,  IV.  414. 


764 


H.  B.  Learned 


Born  and  educated  in  Pennsylvania  Robert  J.  Walker,  while  a 
young  man,  moved  to  Natchez,  Mississippi,  and  there  allied  himself 
to  some  extent  to  southern  interests.  A lawyer  by  profession,  he 
showed  from  early  manhood  a vigorous  interest  in  politics  and  gained 
a leading  position  in  advocating  the  candidacy  of  Andrew  Jackson 
for  the  presidency.  Like  Jackson  he  opposed  nullification  and  the 
re-chartering  of  the  United  States  Bank.  He  favored  the  Indepen- 
dent Treasury  system.  Although  an  owner  of  slaves,  he  could  not 
approve  many  features  of  the  slavery  regime.  Entering  the  national 
Senate  from  Mississippi  at  about  the  age  of  thirty-five,  he  was  soon 
made  chairman  of  the  Senate  Committee  on  Public  Lands  and  en- 
gaged actively  in  the  work  of  lawmaking.  He  was  an  indefatigable 
expansionist,  first  favoring  the  recognition  of  the  independence  of 
the  Texas  republic,  and  later,  in  1844,  arguing  for  its  annexation  to 
the  United  States.  His  fellow-citizens  of  Mississippi  marked  him  as 
their  choice  for  the  vice-presidency  in  the  campaign  of  1844.  His 
selection  the  next  year  by  President  Polk  as  head  of  the  Treasury 
Department  fostered  ability  already  apparent  and  gave  him  new  and 
unexpected  opportunities  to  reveal  unusual  powers  in  constructive 
statesmanship.  His  first  report  as  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  raised 
a storm  of  debate  and  led  to  the  so-called  Walker  Tariff  Act  of  1846, 
of  which  he  was  in  reality  the  framer.  During  his  later  life  he 
acted  for  a brief  time  (1857)  as  governor  of  Kansas,  then  in  a con- 
dition of  turmoil.  When  the  war  broke  out  between  the  states  in 
1861,  Walker  stood  loyally  by  Lincoln’s  administration  and  worked 
for  it.  He  was  for  a time  employed  by  the  federal  government  as 
financial  agent  and  expert  on  business  that  took  him  to  Europe 
where  he  was  able  to  negotiate  some  heavy  loans  for  the  Union 
cause.  He  died  in  Washington,  in  November,  1869.47 

On  December  9,  1848,  after  serving  nearly  four  years  at  the 
head  of  the  Treasury  Department,  Walker  was  moved  to  make  cer- 
tain definite  recommendations  to  Congress  in  his  last  annual  report 
for  the  purpose  not  only  of  relieving  the  Treasury  Department  from 
burdens,  but  also  of  altering  the  administrative  organization  in  such 
a manner  as  ultimately  to  promote — as  he  explained — the  interests 
of  the  American  people.  His  report  was  dated  four  days  later  than 
Polk’s  last  annual  message.  There  was  a patriotic  note  in  Walker’s 
suggestions  that  could  not  have  escaped  even  a casual  reader.  In- 
deed it  seems  fair  to  assume  that  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  con- 
sidered the  report  as  his  valedictory  word  to  the  American  people, 

47  Democratic  Review  (February,  1845),  XVI.  157-164;  Green  Bag,  XV.  101- 
106;  American  Historical  Review,  X.  357;  Appleton,  Cyclopaedia  of  American 
Biography,  VI.  329;  Taussig,  Tariff  History,  fifth  edition,  p.  114. 


The  Secretaryship  of  the  Interior  765 

delivered,  as  it  was,  from  a position  of  marked  prominence.  His 
suggestions  on  administrative  organization  are  worthy  of  careful 
attention,  for  behind  them  were  ripe  experience  and  association  with 
men  and  measures  of  a momentous  epoch.  Inevitably  they  reflected 
the  administrative  deficiencies  of  an  earlier  time. 

At  the  outset  of  his  suggestions  Walker  was  perhaps  unduly 
deferential  to  the  supposed  wisdom  of  Congress  in  respect  to  any 
action  that  that  body  might  be  inclined  to  take.  However,  he  began 
his  considerations  by  asserting  that  the  Treasury  organization  was 
defective  and  that  its  deficiencies  made  it  peculiarly  burdensome  to 
any  man  at  its  head.  In  his  view  there  was  real  danger  lest  the 
department  might  be  broken  down  by  the  very  weight  of  its  own 
machinery. 

Its  varied  and  important  duties  [he  declared],  with  the  rapid  increase 
of  our  area,  business  and  population,  can  scarcely  be  all  promptly  and 
properly  performed  by  any  one  secretary.  Yet  in  detaching  any  of  its 
duties  from  this  department,  the  greatest  care  must  be  taken  not  to 
impair  the  unity,  simplicity,  and  efficiency  of  the  system  . . . there  are 
important  public  duties  having  no  necessary  connexion  with  commerce 
or  finance,  that  could  be  most  advantageously  separated  from  the  treas- 
ury, and  devolved  upon  a new  department.  . . ,48 

This  comment  led  Walker  to  the  presentation  of  a positive  plan 
for  the  new  department  which  should  be  placed  under  a “ head  ” — 
“ to  be  called  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  inasmuch  as  his  duties 
would  be  connected  with  those  branches  of  the  public  service  . . . 
associated  with  our  domestic  affairs.  The  duties  of  this  new  depart- 
ment . . . would  be  great  and  important,  fully  equal  to  those  apper- 
taining to  the  head  of  any  other  department  except  the  treasury 

” 49 

In  Walker’s  plan  there  were  five  definite  propositions,  all  of 
which  were  involved  later  in  the  act  of  1849.  In  ^ie  new  depart- 
ment he  }vould  place,  first,  the  work  of  the  General  Land  Office. 
Second,  he  would  relieve  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  of  sundry 
duties  of  supervision  which  had  no  necessary  connection  with 
finance,  but  were  concerned  with  the  expenses  of  the  courts  of  the 
United  States.  Third,  Indian  affairs  should  have  a place  in  the 
new  department.  Fourth,  the  Patent  Office,  taken  from  the  super- 
vision of  the  State  Department,  should  come  under  the  Secretary 
off  the  Interior.  Finally,  the  Pension  Office,  a burden  to  the  War 
Department,  should  also  find  a place  under  the  new  official. 

On  the  subject  of  the  Land  Office,  Walker  was  especially  detailed 
and  informing.  “The  business  of  the  Land  Office”,  he  wrote, 

48 Executive  Documents , 30  Cong.,  2 sess.  (1848-1849),  II.,  Doc.  7,  p.  35. 

49  Ibid.,  p.  37- 


766 


H.  B.  Learned 


“ occupies  a very  large  portion  of  the  time  of  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  every  day,  and  his  duties  connected  therewith  must  be 
greatly  increased  by  the  accession  of  our  immense  domain  in  Oregon, 
New  Mexico,  and  California,  especially  in  connexion  with  their 
valuable  mineral  lands,  their  private  land  claims,  and  conflicting 
titles.  From  all  decisions  of  the  Commissioner  . . he  continued, 
“an  appeal  lies  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.”  Then  he  added 
this  comment  from  his  own  experience : 

I have  pronounced  judgment  in  upwards  of  five  thousand  cases,  in- 
volving land  titles,  since  the  tenth  of  March,  1845.  These  are  generally 
judicial  questions  . . . requiring  often  great  labor  and  research,  and 
having  no  necessary  connexion  with  the  duties  of  the  Treasury  Depart- 
ment.50 

Indian  affairs  called  forth  this  statement : 

The  duties  now  performed  by  the  Commissioner  of  Indian  Affairs  are 
most  numerous  . . . and  must  be  vastly  increased  with  the  great  number 
of  tribes  scattered  over  Texas,  Oregon,  New  Mexico,  and  California.  . . . 
These  duties  do  not  necessarily  appertain  to  war,  but  to  peace,  and  to  our 
domestic  relations  with  those  tribes.  . . . This  most  important  bureau, 
then,  should  be  detached  from  the  War  Department,  with  which  it  has  no 
necessary  connexion.51 

About  two  months  after  Walker’s  report  was  made,  Samuel  F. 
Vinton  of  Ohio,  a leading  Whig  and  chairman  of  the  Committee  of 
Ways  and  Means  in  the  House,  presented  a bill  approved  by  his 
committee  for  the  purpose  of  organizing  a Department  of  the  Inte- 
rior.52 Vinton  promptly  acknowledged  that  it  had  been  prepared  by 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  at  the  special  request  of  the  committee. 
“ The  bill  ”,  he  declared,  “ with  one  or  two  unimportant  alterations 
. . . was  the  bill  as  it  came  from  the  hands  of  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury.”  Some  time  during  the  previous  month  of  January  it 
appeared  that  Vinton  had  visited  Walker  and  had  then  urgently 
requested  him  to  prepare  a bill.53 

This  notable  origin  of  the  measure  aroused  not  a word  of  com- 
ment in  the  debates  in  the  House.  One  of  the  less  conspicuous  sena- 
tors, however,  was  moved  to  remark  that  it  should  have  been  “ a 
cabinet  measure  ”.  Lack  of  co-operation  on  the  part  of  the  other 
principal  officers  tended  in  his  opinion  to  condemn  it.54 

The  House  showed  some  opposition  to  the  bill.  Howell  Cobb  of 
Georgia,  in  the  lead  of  the  hostile  elements,  gave  three  reasons  for 


50  Executive  Documents,  30  Cong.,  2 sess.  (1848-1849),  II.,  Doc.  7,  p.  35. 

51  Ibid.,  p.  36. 

52  February  12,  1849. 

53  Congressional  Globe,  30  Cong.,  2 sess.  (1848—1849),  XX.  514. 

54  Ibid.,  p.  687.  Allen  of  Ohio,  March  3. 


The  Secretaryship  of  the  Interior 


767 


opposing  the  bill.  He  dwelt  at  some  length  on  the  fact  that  no  pre- 
ceding Congress  had  ever  been  willing  to  sanction  such  a measure. 
He  showed  that  a new  department  would  increase  considerably  the 
federal  patronage.  Moreover  it  was  certain  to  add  “ another  Cabinet 
officer  to  the  Government  ”.55  But  Cobb  and  his  followers  failed  to 
convince.  On  February  15  the  bill  passed  the  House  by  112  yeas 
to  78  nays.56  This  step  had  hardly  been  accomplished  when  John 
G.  Palfrey  of  Massachusetts  moved  to  amend  the  title  by  striking 
out  “ Department  of  the  Interior  ” and  substituting  for  it  “ Home 
Department”.57  This  suggestion  of  Palfrey,  truly  doctrinaire  in 
view  of  the  fact  that  there  was  no  reference  in  the  text  of  the  bill 
to  anything  but  a Department  of  the  Interior,  fixed  the  title  in  law 
with  an  incongruity  that  did  not  escape  later  comment.  Both  Ewing 
and  Stuart,  first  and  third  Secretaries  of  the  Interior,  referred  to 
the  matter.58 

The  Senate  discussions  over  the  bill  were  vigorous  and  at  times 
acrid,  but  they  were  confined  to  a single  day  and  evening  session,  for 
the  bill  was  not  reported  by  Senator  R.  M.  T.  Hunter  of  Virginia 
until  March  3,  the  last  day  of  the  Thirtieth  Congress.  Hunter  was 
mild  in  his  opposition  by  comparison  with  his  colleague,  Senator 
James  M.  Mason,  grandson  of  Colonel  George  Mason,  member  of 
the  Philadelphia  Convention  of  1787.  Mason  made  quite  the  most 
bitter  protest  against  the  bill  that  the  record  of  debate  shows ; and 
he  was  seconded  in  his  position  by  John  C.  Calhoun.  The  leaders  of 
the  small  Senate  majority  that  favored  the  measure  were  Daniel 
Webster  of  Massachusetts  and  Jefferson  Davis  of  Mississippi.  Both 
these  men  argued  ably  and  well.  The  bill  passed  the  Senate  by  a 
vote  of  31  yeas  to  25  nays.59 

The  particular  note  sounded  by  the  Senate  opposition  at  different 
times  in  the  course  of  the  debate  was  first  suggested  by  Hunter.60 
It  was  not  a new  note,  for  Jackson’s  quick  ear  had  detected  it  as  far 
back  as  1829,  and  it  was  probably  even  then  well  known.  It  was 
the  expression  of  fear  of  any  tendency  that  seemed  likely  to  increase, 
however  imperceptibly,  the  bias  of  the  federal  system  toward  author- 
ity not  clearly  delegated.  The  proposal  in  1849  to  create  a new 
department — even  though  the  move  was  really  scarcely  more  than  a 
readjustment  of  existing  organization — aroused  this  fear  in  a manner 
not  easy  to  understand.  The  fear  was  expressed  in  some  variety  of 

55  Ibid.,  p.  516. 

56  Ibid.,  p.  543. 

67  Ibid.,  p.  544. 

58  See  note  2 at  the  end  of  this  article. 

59  Globe,  30  Cong.,  2 sess.,  p.  680. 

60  Ibid.,  pp.  670  ff. 


768 


H.  B.  Learned 


ways.  “ Mr.  President  ”,  exclaimed  Calhoun,  “ there  is  something 
ominous  in  the  expression,  4 The  Secretary  of  the  Interior  \ This 
Government  . . . was  made  to  take  charge  of  the  exterior  relations 
of  the  States.  And  if  there  had  been  no  exterior  relations,  the  Fed- 
eral Government  would  never  have  existed.  . . . Sir,  the  name  4 Inte- 
rior Department  ’ itself  indicates  a great  change  in  the  public  mind. 
. . . Everything  upon  the  face  of  God’s  earth  will  go  into  the  Home 
Department.”61  Senator  Niles  of  Connecticut  felt  that  44  the  whole 
tendency  of  this  Government  is  ...  to  foster  and  enlarge  the  execu- 
tive power  which  is  becoming  a maelstrom  to  swallow  up  all  the 
power  of  the  Government  ”.62 

To  Senator  Mason  the  bill  for  the  new  department  seemed  a 
project  destined  to  place  industrial  pursuits  and  other  interior  con- 
cerns under  the  management  of  the  general  government.  He  could 
not  avoid  the  sectional  note : 

Are  we  to  increase  this  central  power?  More  especially  are  we  who 
belong  to  the  South — who  have  very  little  more  interest  in  this  country 
than  to  have  the  protection  of  our  independence  with  the  other  States; 
from  whom  a great  part  of  the  revenue  is  drawn,  and  to  whom  very 
little  of  it  is  returned;  who  pay  everything  to  Federal  power,  and  re- 
ceive nothing  for  it.  . . . 

A little  further  along  he  declared : 

We  have  yet  some  hope,  although  it  may  be  impaired  by  the  expe- 
rience of  every  day,  that  the  State  organizations  will  yet  outlive  the 
overshadowing  influence  of  this  Federal  Government.63 

Into  this  confusion  of  thought  and  juggling  with  words  there 
came  the  clearer  ideas  of  such  men  as  Webster  and  Davis.  44  Why 
call  this  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior?”,  asked  Webster  in  response 
to  Calhoun’s  rhetoric  about  a title.  44  The  impression  seems  to  be 
that  we  are  going  to  carry  the  power  of  the  Government  further  into 
the  interior.  ...  I do  not  so  understand  it.  Where  is  the  power? 
It  is  only  that  certain  powers  heretofore  exercised  by  certain  agents 
are  to  be  exercised  by  other  agents.  That  is  the  whole  of  it.”64  To 
Webster,  grown  old  in  active  efforts  for  his  country’s  welfare,  his 
mind  filled  with  recollections  of  the  past,  the  historic  aspect  of  the 
measure  must  have  been  deeply  significant.  44As  far  back  as  the 
time  of  Mr.  Monroe  ”,  he  said,  44  and  up  to  this  time,  persons  most 
skilled  and  of  the  most  experience  in  the  administration  of  this  Gov- 
ernment, have  recommended  the  creation  of  some  other  department. 
. . . Gentlemen  can  remember  what  . . . Mr.  Madison  said  on  that 
subject.”  Then  in  another  vein  he  added: 

91  Globe,  30  Cong.,  2 sess.,  p.  672. 

62  Ibid.,  p.  671. 

63  Ibid.,  p.  672. 

64  Ibid.,  p.  677. 


v 


The  Secretaryship  of  the  Interior 


769 


It  is  said,  but  not  very  conclusively,  that  we  create  offices  from  time 
to  time,  and  make  additions  to  salaries.  . . . Well,  the  country  is  increas- 
ing;.the  business  of  the  Government  is  increasing;  there  is  a great  deal 
more  work  to  be  done.  . . . This  bill  may  not  be  perfect.  . . . But  the 
popular  branch  of  the  Legislature  has  passed  it.  It  is  here.  It  is  my 
opinion  that  there  is  a general  sense  in  the  country  that  some  such  pro- 
vision is  necessary.65 

Jefferson  Davis  was  not  forgetful  of  the  force  of  an  appeal  to 
the  past.  He  reminded  his  fellow  senators  that  several  of  the  great 
Virginian  presidents  were  believers  in  the  ideal  of  the  bill.  But 
perhaps  his  particular  contribution  to  the  debate  was  his  reference 
in  the  following  passage  to  the  import  of  the  bill  to  the  “ new  States  ”, 
among  which  Mississippi  was  at  this  time  reckoned.  “ I feel  a very 
peculiar  interest  in  this  measure  ”,  he  asserted,  “ as  every  one  who 
comes  from  a new  State  must  feel.”  Then  he  said : 

We  are  peopling  the  public  lands;  the  inhabitants  of  the  old  States 
are  the  people  of  commerce.  The  Treasury  belongs  to  us  in  common. 
The  Secretaries  of  the  Treasury  must  be  taken  from  those  portions 
of  the  country  where  they  have  foreign  commerce,  and  therefore  they 
are  men  who  are  not  so  intimately  connected  and  acquainted  with  the 
relations  and  interests  of  the  public  lands  in  the  new  States.66 

The  implication  was  obvious  that  the  interests  of  the  new  and  the 
inland  states  were  likely  to  be  better  guarded  if  the  new  department 
could  be  established. 

To  several  Democrats  the  fact  that  a new  Cabinet  officer  would 
have  to  be  appointed  was  a disturbing  thought.  “We  are  assuming 
that  those  who  are  to  succeed  us  require  more  advisers  than  we  have 
had ; we  are  doing  that  thing  which  they  ought  to  do,  if  they  think 
it  is  required.”67 

To  the  reader  of  the  debates  of  1849  the  balance  of  argument 
seems  strongly  in  favor  of  the  measure.  So  thought  the  majority 
in  both  Senate  and  House.  Late  on  the  night  of  March  3 the  bill 
was  presented  to  President  Polk  for  his  signature.  It  was  a long 
bill — too  long  to  have  received  any  very  careful  consideration  from 
Polk  during  these  last  hours  of  his  presidency. 

I had  serious  objections  to  it  [wrote  Polk  several  weeks  later  in  his 
Diary'],  but  they  were  not  of  a constitutional  character  and  I signed  it 
with  reluctance.  I fear  its  consolidating  tendency.  I apprehend  its 
practical  operation  will  be  to  draw  power  from  the  states,  where  the 
Constitution  has  reserved  it,  and  to  extend  the  jurisdiction  and  power 
of  the  U.  S.  by  construction  to  an  unwarrantable  extent.  Had  I been  a 
member  of  Congress  I would  have  voted  against  it. 

65  Ibid.,  p.  671. 

69  Ibid.,  pp.  669-670. 

67  Ibid.,  p.  670. 


77  o 


H.  B.  Learned 


In  Polk’s  eyes  the  measure  was  inexpedient.  It  is  altogether  prob- 
able that,  had  he  had  more  time,  he  would  have  vetoed  it.68  But 
fortunately  the  long  struggle  ended  as  it  did.  Three  days  later,  on 
March  6,  President  Taylor  sent  to  the  Senate  the  name  of  Thomas 
Ewing  of  Ohio  as  first  Secretary  of  the  Interior.  And  on  March  8 
Ewing,  duly  commissioned,  entered  upon  his  duties,  taking  his  place 
as  seventh  member  of  the  Cabinet. 

V. 

The  plan  of  an  Interior  Department  in  1848-1849  was  essentially 
a Democratic  measure  in  its  source.  It  was  the  direct  result  of  the 
pressure  of  administrative  burdens.  There  is  no  evidence  to  show 
that  general  opinion  outside  administrative  or  Congressional  circles 
had  anything  whatever  to  do  with  it.  It  was  certainly  not  the  out- 
come of  wide-spread  demand  or  popular  pressure. 

The  establishment  of  the  department  was  mainly  dependent  upon 
a House  of  Representatives  containing  a small  Whig  majority  (11 7 
Whigs  and  111  Democrats)  and  upon  a Democratic  Senate  (36 
Democrats  and  22  Whigs).69  Circumstances  and  a few  clear-headed 
men  happily  combined  to  enforce  its  need.  The  war  with  Mexico 
was  over  and  settled.  The  new  regions  added  to  the  national  domain 
during  Polk’s  term  had  increased  or  were  likely  to  increase  the 
burdens  of  administration  to  such  an  extent  as  to  make  the  demand 
for  a new  administrative  official  and  organization  imperative.70  The 
official,  Secretary  of  the  Interior  Department,  was  conceived  of  as 
one  who  would  naturally  assume  the  rank  and  position  of  a Cabinet 
member.  His  department  was  bound  to  increase  the  range  of  the 
federal  patronage.  Knowledge,  of  these  facts  served  inevitably  in 
Congress  to  smooth  the  way  of  the  measure  among  Whig  partizans, 
for  Taylor  was  about  to  take  office  as  a Whig  president  in  succes- 
sion to  a Democratic  regime.  Much  was  to  be  said  in  favor  of  the 
intrinsic  merits  of  the  plan.  It  would  provide,  as  Webster  pointed 
out,  a necessary  organization.  The  action  of  the  Ways  and  Means 
Committee  together  with  the  vote  on  the  bill  in  the  House  afforded 
some  evidence  that  the  public  was  ready  to  approve  such  a readjust- 
ment of  administrative  work  as  would  facilitate  the  tasks  of  the 
federal  government  which  were  growing  year  by  year  more  numer- 
ous and  more  complicated. 

Though  familiar  to  public  men  since  the  foundation  period  of  the 

68  The  Diary  of  James  K.  Polk  during  his  Presidency , ed.  M.  M.  Quaife 
(Chicago,  1910),  IV.  371-372. 

69  Globe,  30  Cong.,  2 sess.,  p.  516. 

70  See  note  3 at  the  end  of  this  article. 


The  Secretaryship  of  the  Interior 


77 1 


Constitution  and  advocated  more  or  less  forcibly  by  such  characters 
as  Madison,  Monroe,  John  Quincy  Adams,  and  Andrew  Jackson,  the 
idea  of  a Department  of  the  Interior  was  newly  conceived  and  clearly 
formulated  by  an  experienced  and  public-spirited  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  from  Mississippi.  For  the  plan  of  organization  Robert 
J.  Walker  has  never  received  from  any  historian  the  credit  that  is 
his  just  due.71  He  voiced  the  need  and  launched  the  project  more 
carefully  than  any  statesman  before  him.  But  it  must  not  be  over- 
looked that  his  plan  was  skilfully  and  ably  supported  in  a doubting 
Senate  by  two  such  leaders  as  Daniel  Webster  and  Jefferson  Davis. 

Henry  Barrett  Learned. 


Notes 

i.  Judge  Augustus  B.  Woodward  (c.  1775-1827)  had  published 
in  1809  a pamphlet  entitled  Considerations  on  the  Executive  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  of  America  (Flatbush,  N.  Y.,  pp.  87).  In 
1824  he  was  again  writing  on  various  phases  of  administrative  work 
and  taking  a particular  interest  in  the  project  for  a Home  Depart- 
ment— a subject,  it  should  be  said,  which  was  not  even  mentioned  in 
his  pamphlet  of  1809.  Articles  of  his  which  I have  observed  will  be 
found  in  the  files  of  the  National  Journal  of  Washington,  D.  C.,  as 
follows : 

April  24,  1824.  “ On  the  Necessity  and  Importance  of  a Department  of 

Domestic  Affairs,  in  the  Government  of  the  United  States.” 

May  29.  “ On  the  Distribution  of  the  Bureaux  in  a Department  of 

Foreign  Affairs:  Supplementary  to  the  discussion  on  the  necessity 
and  importance  of  a Department  of  Domestic  Affairs.  . . .” 

May  27  to  August  31.  At  intervals  between  these  dates  there  appeared 
about  a dozen  articles  on  The  Presidency.  These,  together  with 
the  two  foregoing  articles,  were  collected  and  printed  in  the  form 
of  a pamphlet  entitled:  The  Presidency  of  the  United  States,  by 
A.  B.  Woodward  (New  York,  1825,  pp.  88).  The  copyright  date 
of  this  rare  pamphlet  was  May  21,  1825. 

April  9,  1825.  Letter  from  Willie  Blount  to  Judge  Woodward  of 
Florida,  dated  March  14,  1825,  approving  Woodward’s  plan  of  a 
Department  of  Domestic  Affairs.  Woodward’s  reply. 

May  21.  Letter  of  Major  H.  Lee  to  Judge  Woodward,  dated  April  14. 
Woodward’s  reply. 

In  the  National  Intelligencer  of  Washington,  D.  C.,  of  April  23, 
26,  and  28,  1825,  Woodward’s  two  articles  that  had  appeared  the 
year  before  in  the  National  Journal  of  April  24  and  May  29  were 
reprinted  with  a brief  editorial  comment  on  April  28  in  favor  of  his 
plans.  In  general  Woodward  was  opposed  to  what  he  termed  the 
“ cabinet  system  ”,  but  his  -writings  do  not  leave  the  impression  that 

71  But  see  Schouler,  History  of  the  United  States,  V.  121. 


772 


H.  B.  Learned 


he  had  any  very  definite  or  practical  substitute  to  ofifer  in  its  place. 
In  1824  he  was  appointed  federal  judge  for  the  West  District  of 
Florida  ( National  Intelligencer,  February  26,  1825).  The  probable 
year  of  his  death  is  given  as  1827  in  Appleton’s  Cyclopaedia  of 
American  Biography,  VI.  606.  He  appears  to  have  been  interested 
in  science  as  well  as  government.  Charles  Moore  has  thrown  some 
light  on  an  earlier  phase  of  Woodward’s  career  in  a slight  sketch 
entitled  Governor,  Judge,  and  Priest:  Detroit,  1805-1815.  A paper 
read  before  the  Witenagemote  on  Friday  evening,  October  the 
Second,  1891  (New  York,  pp.  24). 

2.  The  first  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  Thomas  Ewing,  in  his 
Report  of  December  3,  1849,  wrote: 

The  department  is  named  in  the  title  “A  Home  Department  ” ; but  the 
body  of  the  act  provided  that  it  shall  be  called  “ The  Department  of  the 
Interior  The  title  of  the  act,  being  the  part  last  adopted  in  the  process 
of  enactment,  is  believed  to  express  the  intention  of  Congress  as  to  the 
name.  . . . 

Secretary  Alexander  H.  H.  Stuart  suggested  in  his  Report  of 
December  2, 1850,  that  Congress  remove  the  ambiguity.  But  nothing 
was  done  until  the  revision  of  the  statutes  in  1873,  when  the  depart- 
ment was  properly  entitled  and  characterized  for  the  first  time  as  an 
“ Executive  ” department.  In  r’espect  to  the  incongruity  between  the 
title  and  the  text  of  the  act  of  1849,  I venture  to  quote  from  a per- 
sonal letter  on  the  point  sent  to  me  under  date  of  April  13,  1910,  by 
Mr.  Middleton  Beaman,  librarian  of  the  Law  Library  of  Congress 
and  the  Supreme  Court: 

So  far  as  I know,  the  title  of  the  act  of  1849  is  the  only  instance  in 
which  the  title  “ Home  Department  ” is  used  in  legislation.  Examina- 
tion of  the  indexes  of  the  Statutes  at  Large  from  1849  to  1873  discloses 
numerous  instances  of  reference  to  this  department  as  the  “ Interior 
Department  ”.  . . . The  title  of  the  original  act  cannot  govern  the  usage, 
as  the  body  of  the  act  expressly  declared  that  the  department  should  be 
called  “ The  Department  of  the  Interior  ”.  By  well  settled  rules  of  stat- 
utory construction  the  title  of  an  act  can  have  no  weight  except  where 
the  provisions  of  the  act  itself  are  ambiguous.  I therefore  am  of  opin- 
ion that  the  official  designation  has  always  been  “ The  Department  of 
the  Interior 

3.  Growth  of  the  National  Domain.  The  extent  of  the  land 
acquisitions  that  were  made  to  the  United  States  in  Polk’s  adminis- 
tration will  be  easily  understood  by  the  following  table : 

1781-1802:  Cessions  by  the  States 
1803 : Louisiana  Purchase  . 

1805 : Oregon  

1812:  West  Florida 

1819:  Florida  


819,81s  square  miles. 
877,268 
225,948 
9740 


1 he  Secretaryship  of  the  Interior 


773 


1845:  Texas  262,290  square  miles. 

1846:  Region  north  of  the  Colorado  River.  58,880 

1848:  Colorado  and  New  Mexico  614,439 

1853 : Gadsden  Purchase  47,330 


(Taken  from  Professor  T.  N.  Carver’s  article,  “ History  of  American 
Agriculture  ”,  in  L.  H.  Bailey’s  Cyclopaedia  of  American  Agriculture, 
IV.  50.) 

It  should  be  noted  that  none  of  the  land  in  Texas  belonged  to  the 
public  domain  and  that  much  of  the  land  in  Colorado  and  New 
Mexico  had  been  granted  to  private  individuals  before  these  regions 
came  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States. 


